Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief

Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 12:43:16 PM)
ObummerCare comes to fruition ... and fails

servantforuse -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 1:02:56 PM)
"We have to sign the bill so we can find out what is in the bill." Nancy Pelosi..

DomKen -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 1:23:17 PM)
What a shock, there might be weaknesses in a law. Now what would be absolutely astounding is if conservatives would grow up and admit the issue of people not having health coverage is an issue of national importance that effects our nation negatively in a number of ways and offer up some ways to improve the ACA not just more ridiculous repeal hype.

TNDommeK -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 2:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse "We have to sign the bill so we can find out what is in the bill." Nancy Pelosi.. I'm not the brightest person, but is this quote for real? Lol

MasterCaneman -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 2:40:03 PM)
Sadly, yes it is.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 3:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse "We have to sign the bill so we can find out what is in the bill." Nancy Pelosi.. I'm not the brightest person, but is this quote for real? Lol Yes, because the House had one bill, the Senate another, and they had to sign both bills before they went in for reconciliation. The House and the Senate took both bills into committee and came out with an agreed upon bill. Thats the part they dont want you to remember.

kalikshama -> RE: Coverage may be unaffordable for low-wage workers (6/13/2013 3:32:43 PM)
Context: “In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said ..., “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority. “So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....” Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

kalikshama -> RE: Coverage may be unaffordable for low-wage workers (6/13/2013 3:40:12 PM)
I agree that $166.25 per month would be high for an individual plan for someone making $21,000 per year. (The article didn't specify if that was individual or family coverage.) I'd be ecstatic to pay $166.25 per month. http://news.yahoo.com/coverage-may-unaffordable-low-wage-workers-151922273.html The National Retail Federation's top health care expert said there's no "grand scheme to avoid responsibility" among employers. "That is a little too Machiavellian," said Neil Trautwein. Nonetheless, he acknowledged it's "a possible outcome" that low-wage workers could find coverage unaffordable because of the wrinkle in the law. It might have turned out differently, added Trautwein, if Democrats had followed traditional congressional practice and taken the House and Senate versions of the bill to a conference committee. They could have worked out such quirks. But leaders determined that path was fraught with political peril after Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority in 2010. "I can't help but thinking, they would have figured out a few more of these corners that don't meet," Trautwein said.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 3:48:21 PM)
And let's not forget that that the whole healthcare reform process might have been a LOT better if the GOP weren't determined to make Obama a "one term president". Since that didn't quite work out for them do you maybe thinks it's time they got off they collective ass and tried working WITH the president rather than against him? Yeah, I know, I'm a real laugh riot... ~Dave

tazzygirl -> RE: Coverage may be unaffordable for low-wage workers (6/13/2013 3:55:05 PM)
[image]http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2013/02/CC-Standard-Individual-Benefit-Plans.jpg[/image] I found this and posted it on another thread. From Bronze To Platinum The companies approved to sell individual insurance on the exchange include the state’s dominant commercial players, such as Anthem Blue Cross, Kaiser Permanente, HealthNet and Blue Shield of California, as well as a number of regional and quasi-public health plans that largely rely on public and university hospitals and community health centers to deliver medical care to low-wage workers. The proposed premiums still must be approved by state insurance regulators. Three of the nation's largest players in the employer-sponsored insurance market -- UnitedHealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna -- are not going to be selling on the California exchange. The proposed premium prices vary depending on the geographic region of California, the consumer’s age and the richness of benefits, from catastrophic coverage for young adults to “Platinum” products. Under the premiums unveiled on Thursday, a 25-year-old in Los Angeles could choose a Health Net catastrophic plan for $117 a month or a more comprehensive “Bronze” plan for $147 a month from L.A. Care, the nation’s largest public health plan. And if that individual makes less than about $45,600 per year, she would qualify for a subsidy that would bring the cost of the premium down further. ........... More than half of Californians shopping for insurance through the state-run marketplace will be eligible for federal income tax credits. Those credits will offset the price of private insurance: A 40-year-old individual in Los Angeles, for example, who earns $1,915 a month, or 200 percent of the federal poverty level, would pay a monthly premium of $90 for a Health Net HMO “Silver” plan in 2014, according to the rates released by Covered California. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/May/24/calif-health-insurance-exchange-marketplace.aspx

JeffBC -> RE: Coverage may be unaffordable for low-wage workers (6/13/2013 4:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama The National Retail Federation's top health care expert said there's no "grand scheme to avoid responsibility" among employers. "That is a little too Machiavellian," said Neil Trautwein. Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa Sure... employers who do things like steal pension plans, lay off older workers for cheaper models, and the whole host of other things that employers routinely do to save money SURELY would not seek to save money by finding loopholes in this law. For the record Kalikshama, here in Canada we pay about $120/mo for both of us. Add in supplemental insurance for some oddball medical cases, dental and optical and you get to about $250/mo... no copays... no massive $3000 annual deductibles. That's for a two people. A "family plan is $133/mo plus whatever optional insurance you want. Single would be less. That is not the poor man's discount. This is the evil of socialism that the Republicans are dead set on saving us from. Oh... it is my understanding that the program is self-funding. In other words, the premiums I mentioned above are not supplemented by tax revenues. I love it that we pay by ourselves less in Canada than we did under a really nice plan from a major corporation in Intel and get better service. My COBRA plan when I left my corporation was roughly 500% what we are paying here in Canada.

JeffBC -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 4:25:51 PM)
OK, I think I'm pretty well documented here as not being supportive of Obama... I'd like to throw his sorry ass in prison for the rest of his life. That being said, I don't see this the same way you do DaddySatyr. Yeah, those situations portrayed in the article are sure unfortunate. But I need to cut him some slack (as much as I hate doing so) for two reasons: A) In any set of complex rules there are always going to be ways it doesn't work out right... particularly in the first go-round. So I'm not terribly surprised there's some gotchas in this one and they need to be fixed. B) The Republicans did everything on the face of the planet to complicate/obfuscate/hinder/screw with this. So given that between our two parties there was no alignment and the thing was a political hockey puck it's not surprising to me that (A) above occurred... whereas it would not have in a move to single-payer. Unless I miss my guess, many of the folks in that article would've been uninsured anyway so the only real problem is if the government actually starts fining poor people. Now, I wouldn't put such a dumbass move past either party but for now I'll wait to see how it pans out.

erieangel -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 4:58:50 PM)
My agency signs a new contract with Highmark on July 1. Premiums are going up. Cost to employees are not going up--at least not for the time being. The agency is going to try to keep costs for the employees the same, but an email put out last week warned that at some point during the next fiscal year, they may have to increase our premiums. It all depends on the agency's bottom line going forward through the next fiscal year July-June. We have been on the pay freeze for the past 3 years and they really do not want to raise costs for us, but if they can't afford to provide the same standard of health care throughout the year, they will pass on the cost to us; they will have to.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:06:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC OK, I think I'm pretty well documented here as not being supportive of Obama... I'd like to throw his sorry ass in prison for the rest of his life. That being said, I don't see this the same way you do DaddySatyr. Yeah, those situations portrayed in the article are sure unfortunate. But I need to cut him some slack (as much as I hate doing so) for two reasons: A) In any set of complex rules there are always going to be ways it doesn't work out right... particularly in the first go-round. So I'm not terribly surprised there's some gotchas in this one and they need to be fixed. B) The Republicans did everything on the face of the planet to complicate/obfuscate/hinder/screw with this. So given that between our two parties there was no alignment and the thing was a political hockey puck it's not surprising to me that (A) above occurred... whereas it would not have in a move to single-payer. Unless I miss my guess, many of the folks in that article would've been uninsured anyway so the only real problem is if the government actually starts fining poor people. Now, I wouldn't put such a dumbass move past either party but for now I'll wait to see how it pans out. Well, here's my issue: this whole thing could have been "fixed" a long time ago. I've been saying it for at least 30 years (so, even when I was a mean-spirited republican that wanted everyone's grandmother eating dog food). The best way to reform healthcare in this country is to remove the words "over 65" from Medicare. Job done. Thanks for comin' out. Peace and comfort, Michael

JeffBC -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Well, here's my issue: this whole thing could have been "fixed" a long time ago. I've been saying it for at least 30 years (so, even when I was a mean-spirited republican that wanted everyone's grandmother eating dog food). The best way to reform healthcare in this country is to remove the words "over 65" from Medicare. Job done. Thanks for comin' out. I don't' know enough about the details of Medicare to comment but if that'd get us to a [more or less] single payer system then you're right. Although honestly, without campaign finance reform there is no answer to problems like this because as long as the corporations, bankers and CEO's are the only votes that matter... well... even if they went to single payer our beloved politicians would still all vote to pay ridiculously huge amounts relative to everywhere else in the world. But honestly, if I have to choose between having zillions of uninsured children and serving an unproven economic ideology I'd go with the former. Neither party wants to control costs so that's not really an option.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:19:02 PM)
Jan Brewer has just extended medicare to 30,000 more people and has pissed off innumerable of her colleagues in the process

tazzygirl -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:19:38 PM)
Even Medicare is administered by many insurance companies. Since the beginning of the Medicare program, CMS has contracted with private companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers.[15] These contractors are commonly already in the insurance or health care area. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Administration Thats what many dont get. Even those programs most people associate as only "government" run still have those nasty, sticky fingers of insurance companies dipping into the pot.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Jan Brewer has just extended medicare to 30,000 more people and has pissed off innumerable of her colleagues in the process That is one solution.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I don't' know enough about the details of Medicare to comment but if that'd get us to a [more or less] single payer system then you're right. It's, essentially, the plan that covers the 537 federal elected officials, now. Yes, our taxes would go up slightly but if we were to go with the plan, the government would tell doctors: "This is what the visit/procedure/operation is worth and this is what we're willing to pay" Whether that system is really the answer or not, what it would do is create true *competition* amongst insurance companies, scrambling to be the ones to provide for your "other healthcare needs" (lower deductables, paying you for time missed from work, etc.). Unfortunately, the way it stands now, the affordable care act is a misnomer and it's a huge shit sandwich from which we're all forced to take a bite. Peace and comfort, Michael

RottenJohnny -> RE: Another Blunder From the Failure-In-Chief (6/13/2013 5:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What a shock, there might be weaknesses in a law. Now what would be absolutely astounding is if conservatives would grow up and admit the issue of people not having health coverage is an issue of national importance that effects our nation negatively in a number of ways and offer up some ways to improve the ACA not just more ridiculous repeal hype. Okay, here's one. How about the ability to opt out?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875